We carried out a review of the data available to us about Parklands on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Parklands, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
A visitor room was available on an appointment basis. This was accessed through a separate entrance and visitors were required to have a test for COVID-19 and wear full Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
Staff wore PPE in line with government guidance. PPE was available in bathroom areas and clinical waste bins were in place for safe disposal.
Staffing had been increased to support enhanced cleaning and laundry practices. However, cleaning schedules had not been amended to include high touch areas. An enhanced cleaning schedule has now been implemented.
There was a duty office near the main entrance which was used by visiting professionals and cleaned after each use. This meant professionals could ensure people received necessary treatment whilst limiting contact with others.
Some areas for improvement were identified. For example, better signage in entrance foyers about COVID-19 and individual staff risk assessments. The registered manager took this on board and implemented changes.
People’s experience of using this service:
People received care which was responsive to their individual needs. Staff had an understanding of people which took account of people’s life histories.
The staff team tailored care to people's individual needs and preferences. Staff took time to understand the experiences of people who lived at the home.
People told us they had formed relationships with the staff team and other people who lived at the home. People contributed to the running of the home and were listened to.
People were supported to maintain relationships with people important to them. Visitors were welcomed at the home and were encouraged to be actively involved in people's lives.
The provider ensured care was based upon good practice guidance to help ensure people received an effective service.
People, relatives and health professionals told us the care provided was effective and people experienced positive outcomes. People and relatives told us staff were empathetic and gave compassionate care.
Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people from harm and had a good understanding reporting concerns both within and outside the home.
Where risks associated with people's health and wellbeing had been identified, there were plans to manage those risks.
Risk assessments ensured people could continue to enjoy activities as safely as possible and maintain their independence. Staff had a good knowledge of how to support people at these times.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff with a range of skills were available at the times people wanted to receive support, in all aspects of their lives.
People received a nutritious diet, had a choice of food, and were encouraged to have enough to drink. The provider and staff team worked closely with external healthcare professionals to ensure people's health and wellbeing was promoted and maintained.
Rating at last inspection:
Good published in November 2016.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on previous rating.
Follow up:
There will be ongoing monitoring and routine inspections of the location based on the rating of Good.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The provider of Parklands Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 29 people. At the time of our inspection there were 23 people who lived at the home plus one person attending for day–care.
There was a registered manager in post, who was on duty at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 19 and 22 February 2016 when we found that they were in breach of the law because they were did not have effective arrangements in place to monitor and improve the service. The provider wrote to us to say what they would do to make the necessary improvements. At this inspection we saw that the actions required had been completed and the regulations were now met.
The provider and the registered manager had introduced regular assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided for people. The provider and registered manager took account of people’s views and suggestions to make sure planned improvements focused on people’s experiences.
People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care and support provided by staff. People felt staff understood their needs and they felt safe. Staff knew how to report abuse and unsafe practices. Staff were recruited based upon their suitability to work with people who lived at the home.
Staff showed a good knowledge of people’s needs and preferences as recorded in their care plans, so were able to deliver them when supporting people.
People were assisted in having enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. People were given choice of meals. Where necessary they were given extra help to eat and drink to stay well.
Staff knew how to support people when specific decisions needed to be made to meet their needs in their best interests. We saw people were given choices about their care and support. This enabled people to be involved in the decisions about how they would like their care and support delivered.
Where the provider and registered manager had identified shortfalls in staff training requirements, action had been taken to up-date staff by booking them training courses in the near future.
We saw people were treated with dignity and respect. People told us that staff looked after them well and were kind. Staff understood people’s needs, wishes and preferences and they had been trained to provide effective and safe care which met people’s individual needs. People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect.
People and their relatives had been consulted about the care they wanted to be provided. Staff knew the people they supported and the choices they made about their care and people were supported to pursue their interests. The provider had made improvement plans for people to access the gardens safely.
There were systems in place for handling and resolving complaints. People and their relatives knew how to raise a concern. The home was run in an open and inclusive way that encouraged staff to speak out if they had any concerns.
The Parklands provides accommodation and personal care for older people, for a maximum of 29 people. At the time of our inspection there were 24 people living at the home.
The inspection took place on the 22 and 23 October 2015 and was unannounced.
There was a registered manager at this home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered providers and registered managers are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and their relatives told us that they felt safe and staff treated them well. However, we saw that staff were not always deployed effectively to keep people safe. The registered manager had identified that more staff were needed but had not consistently arranged for the extra staff to be on duty to support people safely. Staff we spoke with demonstrated awareness and recognition of abuse and systems were in place to guide them in reporting these.
Staff were knowledgeable about how to manage people’s individual risks, and were able to respond to people’s needs. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage them. Staff had up to date knowledge and training to support people who lived at the home. Staff knew people well, and took people’s preferences into account and respected them.
On many occasions staff were seen to be kind and caring, and thoughtful towards people. Staff showed a culture that was focussed on the people that lived at the home.
People were able to make choices about their day to day care and staff supported them to make decisions in their best interest. The registered manager had identified that some people would need assessments by the local authority to ensure people did not have their liberty deprived in an unlawful way. Applications had been submitted to the supervisory body so the decision to restrict somebody’s liberty was only made by people who had suitable authority to do so.
People told us they had access to access to health professionals were needed. Relatives told us they were constantly updated about their family member and were involved with their care provision. We saw people had food and drink they enjoyed.
People were able to see their friends and relatives as they wanted. There were no restrictions on when people could visit the home. People and relatives knew how to raise complaints and were confident action would be taken if needed. The registered manager had arrangements in place to ensure people were listened to.
People were involved in pastimes they enjoyed. Staff knew people and their needs well. Relatives told us they were consistently involved with their family member’s care. They knew who to speak to if they needed to make a complaint and felt confident any issues raised would be resolved. People who lived at the home and staff were involved in regular meetings were supported by the management team.
The provider needed to action the identified concerns and effectively monitor the future quality of service provision. Roles within the management team needed clarity to ensure actions were followed through and completed in some areas to promote the safety and wellbeing of the people who lived at the home.
Please see the actions we told the provider to take at the end of the report.